Tunku Abdul Aziz

Saya ingin mengucapkan terima kasih kepada Tuan Yang Di pertua kerana mengizinkan saya membaca ucapan penangguhan Rancangan Malaysia ke 10 ini.

Rancangan Malaysia ke-sepuluh telah diumumkan pada bulan Jun dan ini adalah rancangan pembangunan lima tahun yang paling penting dalam pembangunan Malaysia. Ia merangkumi pembangunan semua sektor Negara termasuk bidang sosial, ekonomi, keselamatan dan pertadbiran am.

Angkatan tentera adalah tembok atau tulang belakang pertahanan keselamatan Negara. Boleh dikatakan tanpa pengorbanan anggota angkatan tentera dahulu dan sekarang, kita tidaklah dapat menikmati kesejahteraan dan keamanan pada hari ini.

Tetapi apa yang menghairankan ialah Rancangan Malaysia yang baru dibentang baru-baru ini, langsung tidak menyentuh pembangunan keupayaan pertahanan dan angkatan tentera. Dalam dokumen RMK 10 yang setebal 449 muka surat ini langsung tidak menyentuh sepatah perkataan mengenai pertahanan.

Berdasarkan maklumat am yang diberi oleh RMK 10, sektor keselamatan mendapat 10% dari RM230 billion peruntukan. Daripada jumlah tersebut, berapakah peruntukan dalam bidang pertahanan dan juga pecahan peruntukan kepada Polis, Agensi Penguatkuasa Maritim Malaysia dan Angkatan Tentera.

Selain itu, saya ingin menyentuh perkara senarai perolehan kelengkapan tentera dibawah RMK 10. Sebelum itu, saya telah menghantar soalan kepada kementerian pertahanan mengenai senarai perolehan kelengkapan untuk lima tahun depan, tetapi soalan saya ditolak kerana ianya didakwa menyentuh kerahsiaan.

Tambahan lagi, soalan-soalan saya yang menyentuh perolehan kelengkapan yang sedang dan siap dilaksanakan juga ditolak atas alasan yang sama. Saya ingin menegaskan di sini bahawa adalah tidak munasabah menolak soalan-soalan tersebut memandangkan isu-isu menyentuh rahsia ketenteraan tidak wujud.

Pertama, saya memahami pembelian kelengkapan tentera adalah sensitif dan perlu menjaga rahsia ketenteraan seperti unsur-unsur spesifikasi dan atur gerak.

Tetapi, soalan yang ditanya bukan bertujuan untuk mendapat rahsia ketenteraan seperti yang disebut, tetapi untuk mendapat maklumat latar belakang pembelian dan pembangunan kelengkapan tentera yang telah diumumkan oleh Kementerian Pertahanan sendiri.

Jikalau Kementerian Pertahanan sendiri yang membuat pengumuman pembelian kelengkapan tersebut, maka ini tidaklah dikira sebagai rahsia lagi. Saya menyentuh:

1. pembelian Vera-E Radar Pasif dari Omnipol, Republik Czech yang telah beberapa kali dicatatkan dalam Laporan Tahunan Kementerian Pertahanan 2007 dan 2008. Dan laporan tersebut telah menyatakan projek timbal balas Vera-E sedang dipantau oleh kementerian.

2. pembelian Cruise Missile diumumkan oleh bekas Timbalan Menteri Pertahanan sendiri di Dewan Rakyat.

3. Institut Penyelidikan Sains dan Teknologi Pertahanan (STRIDE) yang telah menunjukkan peluru berpandu Taming Sari XK98 keseluruh negara pada 31 Ogos 2007 bersempena Perarakan Merdeka 2007 di Dataran Merdeka.

Kedua, pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan adalah mengguna peruntukan awam dan perlu mendapat persetujuan Parlimen. Oleh itu, adalah munasabah dan kepatutuan untuk ahli parlimen membincang dan mengetahui latar belakang atau basic information (dengan izin) pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan yang mahal ini.

Ketiga, Ahli Parlimen dan rakyat mempunyai hak untuk mengetahui senarai pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan yang akan dilancar pada lima tahun depan iaitu dalam Rancangan Malaysian Kesepuluh. Memandangkan pembelian kelengkapan ketenteraan adalah sangat mahal dan mudah berlaku penyelewengan, maka adalah perlu dipantau oleh Parlimen dan rakyat supaya berselaras dengan prinsip-prinsip good governance (dengan izin) dan meningkatkan lagi ketelusan kerajaan.

8 Billion untuk membeli 257 buah Kereta Perisai AV8

Kerajaan baru mengumumkan di DSA 2010 pada 20 April 2010 yang mana akan membelanja RM 8 billion yang mana adalah perolehan terbesar dalam sejarah Malaysia untuk memperolehi 257 buah kereta perisai pembawa anggota AV8 dari syarikat DEFTECH dan FNSS supaya mengganti semua kereta Condor dan Sibmas yang sudah usang. Ini bermaksud, secara amnya , setiap AV8 berkos RM31 juta!

Walaupun difahamkan RM8 bilion ini merangkumi RM 400 juta bagi membangunkan kemudahan DEFTECH di Pekan, dan juga kos R&D dan integrasi dan ujian, namun angka tersebut tidaklah munasabah sehingga mencecah beberapa billion ringgit. Selain itu, berbanding dengan program pembangunan kereta perisai 8×8 di luar Negara, ia juga dilihatkan satu jumlah yang amat tinggi. Mengikut kajian, purata kos sebuah kereta perisai 8×8 ialah 2 -3 juta USD, atau dalam RM ialah 10 juta lebih. Kenapa AV8 kita ini mahal hampir dua kali ganda dari luar negeri?

Pihak Kementerian juga tidak menjelaskan bagaimana RM8 bilion ini diguna dalam pecahan kos R&D, ujian, integrasi, pembangunan infrastruktur, kos pembelian harta intelek dari Turkey’s FNSS Company dan unit kos. Kenapa perolehan ini adalah melalui direct negotiation (dengan izin), bukan secara tender terbuka memandangkan ia menelan wang yang begitu tinggi.

Soalan Bujet 2010

Anggaran perbelanjaan mengurus 2010 telah menunjukkan penurunan dalam bidang latihan, logistic, operasi dan pengurusan. Adakah penurunan yang banyak ini akan menjejaskan quality latihan dan keberkesanan melaksanakan operasi-operasi? Tetapi, di sini telah timbul satu soalan. Mengikut permerhatian terhadap prestasi budget KEMENTAH, difahamkan bahawa KEMENTAH secara kebiasaannya membuat anggaran perbelanjaan tahun depan kurang dari sebenar yang diperlukan. Misalnya, dalam budget 2009 menunjukkan anggaran perbelanjaan latihan untuk pertahanan darat 2008 adalah RM35,472,600. Tapi, di dalam budget 2008 untuk perkara sama adalah dicatatkan sebagai RM19,072,600. Di manakah angka yang sebenarnya?

KEMENTAH sepatutnya memberi maklumat yang lebih tepat dalam budget tahunan. Janganlah memberi penilaian yang rendah dari sebenar atau diperlukan. Apakah dasar yang digunapakai KEMENTAH di dalam membuat anggaran ini? Apa statistic dan formula yang digunakan? Dan, adakah kerana tiap-tiap kali Kementerian memberi anggaran rendah mengakibatkan kementerian terpaksa memohon peruntukan tambahan dalam sidang dewan parlimen masa depan?

Selain itu, saya melihat anggaran perbelanjaan pembangunan untuk tiga perkhidmatan membeli perlengkapan yang dicatatkan di dalam budget 2010 ialah RM10. Mungkin pihak kementerian boleh jelaskan peruntukan RM10 yang dinyatakan tersebut.

Sekian ucapan penggulungan saya .

There is a place for conglomerates in the business world. However, as with everything else, some are good, but mostly they invariably become unwieldy and difficult to manage effectively. Many come unstuck, leaving behind a trail of miserable examples of management failures, human greed and frailties. As always, there is a lot of cleaning up to do after the party is over. The sad truth is that we do not as yet have what it takes to run a complex business successfully, and a conglomerate is hellishly difficult to keep on a straight course because the temptation to wander off into the unfamiliar is often irresistible, and most conglomerates find themselves up a creek.

There have been many instances of major failures in the Sime stables. There was the case of the insurance business in the UK in the eighties, a member of Lloyds, which was in such a bad shape because of mismanagement that it had to be bundled with a very profitable money broking company into an attractive package and sold for a song. Sime Darby naturally had to be responsible for all the liabilities resulting from claims on policies transacted up to the time of the sale of the company. For the next several years after the sale of the company to the new owners, Sime Darby continued to send out to the UK enormous sums of money to cover the claims.

Then there was the Sime Bank debacle. Banking was a business in which it had no expertise and had to rely on the management that came along with the bank when it was acquired. The integrity of the many of the top executives running Sime Bank was questionable. What happened to the bank should have been a lesson to the board of Sime Darby about sticking to what it was good at. I well remember in Windsor, England, saying jocularly to Tunku Tan Sri Ahmad Yahaya, then Group Chief Executive, when he told me Sime Darby had acquired a bank that he would be better off getting a casino licence. Later he admitted that I was right.

I also recall the factory ship fiasco in the early eighties. The Sime Darby-owned vessel operating in the North Atlantic off the coast of Africa found itself in rough seas financially. Sime Darby decided to sack its two British employees claiming that they had got into this business without the approval of the board in Kuala Lumpur. This was patently untrue. The Brits would not be bullied into submission, and they sued Sime Darby and its Chairman, then Tun Tan Siew Sin, for wrongful dismissal, and won a very substantial sum of money in an out of court settlement. Zubir, the dismissed Group Chief Executive should not have allowed the board of Sime Darby to treat him so shabbily.

I personally believe that with a loss of this scale of magnitude, an honourable board would have resigned because obviously it has failed to discharge its fiduciary and other related responsibilities of stewardship. Zubir has been used as a scapegoat in the Anglo-Malaysian corporate tradition. If Sime Darby had been an American company, the chair would have accepted responsibility and resigned or been forced to go without ceremony. I find Musa’s logic for staying put, saying that he would resign if required to do so by the shareholders, disingenuous and self-serving to say the least. He must know he has failed as chairman, and based on the principle of collective responsibility, his board must exit with him. This is the honourable thing expected of a responsible board, and this is what I expect the much trumpeted Sime tagline, ‘Developing Sustainable Futures’ to be all about. My advice to Zubir is to consider taking Musa and his board to the cleaners. Sue them. We need in this country boards that are principled, and we can also do with a little honour and integrity in our business leadership.

Sime Darby in the meantime must take a good, hard look at itself to see if operating on the present model is sustainable. It is obvious that Sime Darby has become largely unwieldy, unmanageable, and unsustainable. It is showing all the signs of having become a conglomerate in the worst possible sense. The worst is not over yet.

(The writer is a former Group Director of Sime Darby, 1979-1985)

JAWAPAN LISAN DEWAN NEGARA TUNKU ABDUL AZIZ IBRAHIM PADA 4 MEI 2010.

SOALAN:

Tunku Abdul Aziz bin Tunku Ibrahim minta PERDANA MENTERI menyatakan status penubuhan EAIC sehingga kini serta terangkan langkah-langkah penyelesaian untuk memantau PDRM memandangkan kes penyalahgunaan kuasa di kalangan pegawai polis masih berleluasa.

JAWAPAN:
DATUK LIEW VUI KEONG
TIMBALAN MENTERI DI JABATAN PERDANA MENTERI

Tuan Yang Dipertua
Enforcement Agency Integrity Commission (EAIC) Act 2009 atau dalam Bahasa Melayunya dikenali sebagai Akta Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasa 2009 telah diluluskan oleh Dewan Rakyat dan Dewan Negara masing-masing pada 30 Jun 2009 dan 9 Julai 2009. Setelah mendapat perkenan Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang diPertuan Agong pada 19 Ogos 2009, akta tersebut telah diwartakan pada 3 September 2009.

Suruhanjaya ini akan diletakkan di bawah Jabatan Perdana Menteri. Usaha bagi menubuhkan suruhanjaya ini sedang dijalankan di mana urusan belanjawan mengurus adalah di bawah Kementerian Kewangan manakala Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam (JPA) pula bertanggungjawab ke atas urusan penjawatan. Di bawah peruntukan yang telah diluluskan, pihak JPA telah bersetuju menyediakan TIM Nukleus SIAP di mana semua perjawatan SIAP diwujudkan secara sementara selama setahun bgi membolehkan pelantikan Setiausaha, pengisian perjawatan dan penyediaan pejabat SIAP dilakukan sewajarnya. Selepas tempoh tersebut, TIM Nukleus SIAP akan ditukarkan semula ke perjawatan tetap sepenuhnya di bawah SIAP.

Sekian. Terima kasih.

The Sultan of Perak was angry, so very angry at the behaviour of the his state assemblymen that he felt constrained to use the occasion of his 82nd birthday celebrations to rebuke them for conduct unbecoming. Boorish and uncouth behaviour has become an institutional feature of both national parliamentary as well as state assembly proceedings. His Royal Highness was making a pointed reference to the behaviour of members of the Perak State Assembly. Such behavioural traits that we see in many of our legislative chambers up and down this nation are nothing more than symptoms of a deep malaise among members of the opposition. The Sultan should try and understand why otherwise reasonable people, many pillars of society, behave as they do.

Should not the Sultan pause to reflect, in relation to his little fiefdom, on his own contribution to this state of affairs? Does he not realise that by his own clumsy handling of the Perak political crisis, a view widely held, he has succeeded brilliantly in reducing the Government of Perak into an object of fun and ridicule, both in Malaysia as well as abroad. In the circumstances, and with the greatest respect, neither the Sultan nor the Raja Muda should attempt to claim the high moral ground. They should be well advised to resist the temptation to lecture us on what is, and what is not, acceptable behaviour.

The antics of the “legitimate” members of the Perak State Assembly are as nothing compared with the morally ugly methods and instruments of the state employed by the authorities to deny the people of Perak representation by fellow citizens of their choice. I offer no apology for being judgmental. That unhappy episode will be etched in our collective memory and will serve as a reminder for many years to come of the betrayal of public trust by leaders who are totally consumed by material greed and power, however acquired. The moral decay is complete.

Now, let me return to a consideration of the cause of the behaviour that has so displeased the Sultan of Perak. The opposition, whether we like it or not, is part of our parliamentary system of government, and as such is vitally important for the proper functioning of democracy, or what goes by this label, in our country. Obama, please note. The opposition provides for the checks and balances without which the crippling excesses we see being committed with regular monotony, and nearly always bordering on the criminal, will be completely hidden from public view and scrutiny.

In spite of being part of the constitutional arrangements, the opposition is regarded as an enemy of the state and treated as such. Members of the opposition find their work hampered by mindless government members of parliament and even public servants who do not understand the nature and role of the opposition in a parliamentary democracy. All this is not helped by the often openly hostile attitude of the speaker, driving opposition parliamentarians to distraction and they naturally react accordingly. Given the fact that the office of speaker is key to the decorum and dignity of what the Sultan of Perak described as “the august house”, then it makes enormous sense to select the candidate carefully, and he or she does not have to be from the ruling party. With a few notable exceptions, we have had our share of fair minded speakers. We have also had a few goons, a word I use in both the British, as well as the North American meanings. They, not the much reviled opposition, give the august house a bad name.

Give the opposition its due, as provided by the constitution and observe the traditional practices of mature democracies, and accord the opposition its rightful place and honour as His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. The government has a duty to the country to ensure that by its own conduct, it will enable the opposition to carry out its work without fear or favour in the interest of the nation.

The fact that the opposition is stronger today than ever before in the country’s parliamentary history shows that even if the government is apparently trying its hardest to marginalise the opposition, vast numbers of Malaysians believe in the role of an effective opposition to curb corruption and excesses in our government today..

Tunku Abdul Aziz

By YENG AI CHUN (The Star)

PETALING JAYA: Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) will hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to discuss the controversial Global Corruption Report (GCR) 2009 as well as other leadership issues.

Acting president Datuk Mohamed Iqbal said the objective of the EGM was to brief members about the report and decide if there was a need for a change in the executive council.

“The exco has agreed to convene an EGM as soon as possible to address the issues and if necessary, to step down, thus providing the opportunity for the members to elect a new exco,” he said in a statement yesterday.

Early this month, Datuk Paul Low resigned as president after his release of the Malaysian Chapter of the Berlin-based report, which cited the Port Klang Free Zone controversy as the biggest scandal of the year.

Low took responsibility of releasing the report without the exco reviewing it.

Since the GCR report was released, certain parties in the country have planned to sue TI-M, including businessman Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing.

Exco member Tan Sri Datuk Robert Phang also questioned the report’s accuracy and has since resigned, along with inaugural president and former vice-chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz.

Mohamed Iqbal said a special meeting was called on Oct 5 to address issues relating to the report, and the minutes of the meeting were endorsed and passed by the exco on Monday.

“I am pleased to inform that the leadership of TI-Malaysia is solid and our organisation shall continue to devote itself to fighting and curbing corruption,” he said.

He added that the report was made up of three sections: thematic focus, country reports and research, and Malaysia was included in the 47 country reports.

By YENG AI CHUN (The Star)

PETALING JAYA: Transparency International Malaysia (TI-M) will hold an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) to discuss the controversial Global Corruption Report (GCR) 2009 and its leadership crisis.

Acting president Datuk Mohamed Iqbal said the objective of the EGM was to brief members about the report and decide if there was a need for a change in the executive council (exco).

“The exco has agreed to convene an EGM as soon as possible to address the issues and if necessary, to step down, thus providing the opportunity for members to elect a new exco,” he said in a statement on Tuesday.

Early this month, Datuk Paul Low resigned as president in the light of differing views after his release of the Malaysian Chapter of the Berlin-based report, which cited the Port Klang Free Zone controversy as the biggest scandal of the year.

Low took responsibility for releasing the report without the exco reviewing it.

Since the GCR report was released, certain parties in the country have threatened to sue TI-M, including businessman Datuk Seri Tiong King Sing.

Exco member Tan Sri Datuk Robert Phang also questioned the accuracy of the report and has since resigned, along with inaugural president and former vice-chairman Tunku Abdul Aziz.

Mohamed said a special meeting has been called on Oct 5 to address issues relating to the report. Minutes of the meeting were endorsed and passed by the exco during a meeting on Monday.

“I am pleased to inform that the leadership of TI-Malaysia is solid and our organisation shall immediately continue to devote itself to fighting and curbing corruption.

“It is important to note that the GCR is an annual assessment of the state of corruption around the world with a yearly thematic focus, which in 2009 was devoted to the private sector. The report brings together leading experts and practitioners to identify and analyse new challenges, as well as explore solutions,” he said.

He added that the report is made up of three sections: thematic focus, country reports and research, and Malaysia is included in the 47-country report. “TI-Malaysia and the international secretariat of Transparency International based in Berlin confirm that the Malaysia country report is accurate,” he said.

Mohamed said that the process involved consultation between the GCR editorial team at TI-S Berlin, author Greg Lopez and TI-Malaysia.

“This was followed by a double-blind review, fact- and libel-checking carried out by TI-S Berlin. The editorial team in charge of the GCR confirms that TI-Malaysia’s contribution to the report underwent all of these procedures,” he said.

Transparency International (TI) is the only international non-governmental organisation specialised in curbing corruption, but the TI-Malaysia is currently having a dispute. As a monitoring organisation, it is unable to set a good example but has caused unnecessary quarrels. How is it going to fight corruption and play its role well?

TI was established in 1993 and it has set up branches in 120 countries. Its objective is to bring incorruptible people from different governments, businesses and societies together through its branches in order to create change towards “a world free of corruption”.

Malaysia is facing a serious corruption and the efficiency of law enforcement units is not satisfactory. The country is in need of an non-governmental organisation to call on people with conscience to fight corruption together with the domestic social forces. The split of the organisation has dealt a blow to the followers’ morale and reflected that even such a noble organisation is unable to escape from personnel issues.

It is ironic that in the earlier released Global Corruption Report (GCR) 2009, TI revealed the complex relationships among political party members, officials and entrepreneurs in the Port Klang Free Zone (PKFZ) scandal. It also described the common thread running through politics, the civil service and private sector as a “revolving door”. And now, we can see that the leadership of TI-Malaysia is in fact “complicated”, too.

Datuk Paul Low, who has resigned as President of TI-Malaysia, is a former MCA life member. He resigned from MCA on 19 June this year after he was questioned by DAP adviser Lim Kit Siang. Low had joined MCA in 1991, which means that, he had a political background when he was the President of TI-Malaysia. The leader of an anti-corruption organisation must transcend politics so he will have no scruples in performing his duty. TI-Malaysia has failed to ensure that MCA leaders are not involving in corruption, especially when MCA leaders are also cabinet ministers.

Just like an unwritten code of Sin Chew Daily, journalists are not allowed to join any political party, so as not to affect fairness and neutrality of news reporting. How is a journalist with a political stand going to play the “Fourth Estate” role? Similar to Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission (MACC) officials and the police, they should transcend politics in order to professionally perform their duties.

When Low was appointed as a PKFZ task force member by the Transport Minister on 10 June and the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Committee on Administration and Corporate Governance, he was still a MCA member. It might not necessarily affect his profession, but it would trigger a discussion.

On the other hand, TI-Malaysia founder Tunku Abdul Aziz Ibrahim has joined DAP on 23 Aug last year and sworn in as a DAP senator in July this year. Based on the same principle, he should have resigned earlier.

Politics has invaded many areas and organisations, causing many unnecessary disputes and troubles. Hopefully, TI-Malaysia may draw a line between the organisation and politics as soon as possible to defend its credibility and professionally, return to its anti-corruption duty. (By LIM SUE GOAN/Translated by SOONG PHUI JEE/Sin Chew Daily)

Malaysian Insider

JULY 23 — The death, while under the care of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission, in mysterious circumstances of Teoh Beng Hock last week promises to weaken further the already fragile public confidence in the government and its agencies in our country.

Regaining public confidence will not be a walk in the park for the government given its abysmal record of dealing with deaths in police custody. The government should never have adopted such a patently careless and cavalier attitude when dealing with matters of public concerns. The loss of trust in the government and its agencies is extremely unfortunate because by doing the “right thing” they could have earned and retained our respect, confidence and gratitude.

The initial handling of the Beng Hock “death in custody” case by the MACC could hardly be described as professional and this has fuelled a million and one speculations. All this is extremely unfortunate, but understandable. People simply do not trust the very organisations that are supposed to protect them anymore and, for many, the suspicion they harbour is based on their bitter personal experience of official encounters with the country’s enforcement agencies. Can the government fairly blame the people for feeling angry and resentful with the way the police, and now the MACC, apparently conduct their work?

I have never hidden my true feelings about the MACC. I have been critical of this organisation which, a few months ago, I described in my weekly Sin Chew column, as OLD WINE IN A NEW BOTTLE. I wrote in my opening paragraph:

“What a waste of public funds! The creation of the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission will go down in history as a feeble and pathetic final clutch at the straws by a sitting duck prime minister best remembered for his inexhaustible supply of good intentions but with nothing to show for them. The MACC was hastily conceived against a murky background of a web of duplicity and deceit. It was a desperate attempt at deluding the people of this country and the world anti-corruption community that the Abdullah Badawi administration still had a lot of fire in its belly to make corruption a high risk and low return business. The whole process was nothing more than a charade, a sleight of hand that we have come to expect from this government. In the meantime corruption continues to be in robust good health.”

I also touched on the much hyped “Hong Kong model” upon which the new corruption fighting machine is apparently based — the less said the better about this. It is clear for all to see that the MACC falls far short of the Hong Kong Independent Commission Against Corruption’s template on at least two counts. The first and most obvious short coming is an absence of a legal provision that will allow a MACC officer to call anyone to account for his wealth and lifestyle that are obviously beyond his known legal income. There is the anti-laundering provision, but this is not the same.

The second is its much touted independence. The MACC is NOT independent. No one believes it is independent because its leadership has allowed it to become a political instrument that is seen by the people to work to the Barisan Nasional agenda. This is because we are manning the MACC with the self-same functionaries who developed second guessing into a fine art form under Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad’s special guidance. They cannot reasonably be expected to change their work practices which have become almost second nature to them.

I should feel happy because I have been totally vindicated by the recent events but I cannot, in all conscience, bring myself to rejoice amidst a great human tragedy, the totally unexpected death of Teoh Beng Hock, a young loyal Malaysian of great promise who believed passionately in change for a better, safer Malaysia.

If the government wants to retain its legitimacy to govern, it must rededicate itself to the principles of international best practices predicated on justice for all, transparency and accountability in the conduct of the affairs of state. It must clean out its unsavoury stables of corruption because it is corruption that has reduced this country to its present sorry state. As for the MACC, in its present form it is of no use to either man or beast.

Its senior officers have to accept full responsibility for what has gone so horribly wrong so soon after its establishment. Seriously, they should get on their bicycles in full ceremonial uniform dripping with gold plated buttons and other bits and pieces and ride off into the sunset of shame and degradation. — mysinchew.com

Tuan Yang Dipertua,

Saya mengucapkan terima kasih kerana dibenarkan untuk membahaskan rang undang-undang Suruhanjaya Integriti Agensi Penguatkuasaan 2008 atau dengan ringkasnya SIAP.

Di dalam bab integriti, saya ingin menyentuh hanya kepada aspek polis dan cara tahap profesionalisme polis di Negara ini.

Tuan Yang Dipertua,

Saya telah dilantik oleh Duli Yang Maha Mulia Seri Paduka Baginda Yang Dipertuan Agong sebagai salah seorang pesuruhjaya di dalam Suruhanjaya Diraja Penambahbaik Operasi dan Pengurusan Polis bersama teman-teman saya yang terdiri daripada dua bekas ketua hakim, seorang bekas Ketua Polis Negara dan badan-badan bebas dalam melihat dan mengkaji tingkahlaku badan kepolisian yang ada di Negara kita.

Dengan kajian yang sungguh mendalam, kami telah merumuskan bahawa kita memerlukan sebuah suruhanjaya bebas bagi memantau badan polis ini.
Read more…

THE UPSURGE of interest in integrity and ethics is not without a good reason. People all over the world have realized that human progress is unlikely to be sustainable without all of us adopting and embracing universal human values – values that transcend cultural, religious and political barriers.

In Malaysia we have the best legal framework, rules, regulations and procedures, but corrupt practices continue unchecked because those entrusted to serve the community are themselves morally and ethically deficient and devoid of ethical values and high standards of personal and public behaviour.

If we lose our competitive position because we are corrupt and lack integrity, we are putting our future as a nation at risk. Corruption kills competition, breeds inefficiency, distorts our decision making processes and promotes social and political instability in the long run. I believe that in societies where integrity is firmly entrenched, corruption can be kept firmly under control.

We have to refocus our vision and reshape our views and ideas on what can be done to fight unethical public behaviour, not only on our own turf, but equally important, on the international front because cross-border corruption represents a major source of social, economic and political instability and distortion, if not dealt with decisively.
Read more…